I have a feeling that the point of the show is to attract these vapid, "artist" types...but also those who *loathe* those vapid "artist" types. For the latter (the category in which, I'm guessing, most of us fit), it'll be like watching a train wreck. I'm willing to check out a few episodes just to see if Sucklord can make any of the other cast members cry...

I haven't watched TV in like 7 or 8 years but I recently started watching Mexican primetime with my girlfriend (she doesn't speak English). In addition to local news in Spanish, she watches horrible telenovelas and celebrity gossip shows and I often unintentionally laugh at inappropriate times and she laughs and tells me that my laughter makes her laugh but she doesn't know that I'm crying inside. All TV is terrible. All movies are terrible. All art and poetry is terrible. All music is terrible. Everything is terrible including the stuff from when you were young and before you were young and everything in the future. There should be a terrible show about me.

Scopedog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>All TV is terrible...Everything is terrible including the stuff from when you >were young and before you were young and everything in the future.

I wrote this big response, but it got lost due to bad wireless... and probably for the best since it might piss people off. I will keep it short but to the point.

In my humble opinion, I don't quite understand some of you creative types who make toys, make graphics, have design/toy blogs and pimp your wares or do shows, who are hating on any other "artists" who basically do the same thing. I mean, you can call yourself anything you want to sleep better at night, but from the perspective of any average person, you are an artist. It is only in the past 20 or so years that I have noticed that word to be a badge of embarrassment. I went to a school for art, and I know plenty of others who did. Many are actually amazing people to know. People who do their work, because they love what they do, not because a TV is on them.

I know I am a dick, and have made peace with it a long time ago, but that has less to do with my chosen profession and more about who I am at the core.

Maybe for me, the working class hero bashing trend of "artists" and the scene, which you are directly or indirectly apart of just seems like a waste of energy, that simply could go into creating work. I mean the best revenge against people you dislike is just succeeding on your own terms, not pointing out why they suck. ( even though it is enjoyable to do to some extent)

You know who is more tedious than some artists for me? Art critics behind keyboards.

This might have been the most hippy/annoying thing out of my mouth, but whatever. A week of total lack of sleep for work, probably has something to do with it. I am sure I will regret saying most of it once I get some rest.

Sure, I get that this comes across as a slight overreaction but it is a topic I have thought about for years here.

I'll assume that's directed at least partially at me and say, I don't hate 'artist just because', I just can't stand the ones that take themselves too seriously'. I think the Sucklord works as a great foil to that, because he clearly does not take himself seriously, but sees how some people do around him. He clearly means well, but also manages to just stomp all over that pampered self-importance that is so dominant in Western and modern 'art' or at least 'art toys'.

I am not actually trying to single you out Ben. You are not the only person who seems to have this opinion. But the posts I see are never "oh I dislike this kind of person" but using the word "artist" as a descriptor for an asshole.

It is in fact a topic I thought about before you were even on the site. I certainly also don't mean to come across as I am attacking anyone here. I am simply airing out my frustration because I find the reactions we ALL have to be a bit inconsistent. If we know the person, or they are in the fold, their behavior is given a pass. If they are the "other" we love to bash them as being hipsters and douchbags. Tribes bring comfort.

I met Sucklord in NYC. I will be honest, he might have had a bad day, and be a super stand up guy, or what not, but he was very rude to me right off the bat.But who cares right? It was just amusing because it was in a way I used to encounter with guys who feel they have to prove they are hardcore by judging your "mainstreamness" exterior as a weakness. But at the end of the day my annoyance at his reaction probably touches on my own youthful desire to still be seen as relevant and says more about my own sense of identity. Whatever.

I have paid my dues over the years. Lol. I don't need to wear it on my sleeve anymore. Sure, when your 16-20 you need validation like that. But not at the age a lot of us are at now. It is why I stopped listening to Rollins...heh, he is in his mid forties and still stuck in his 18 year old Black Flag mentality even though he does voiceovers for Lexus and Apple and makes way more money than most white collar execs.

You can't have it both ways. Success means the manistream has accepted you to a degree, so acting as if you don't belong there and try to point out how much of a poseur others is...to me, says more about yourself then them.

The point is everyone to some degree takes themselves seriously. If you create something you put out there, you have to have a thick skin, and believe in yourself enough to weather the critics out there. People who play the card of "oh I don't care what people think of me" are not being honest with themselves in my opinion.People look for comfort food moments and a sense of belonging in various ways. Playing the roll of "purist outsider" is just another version of that.

I mean hell, I know how full of shit I sound even typing this but can most of us honestly be pointing the finger at "artists" when we collect expensive toys and make small run limited edition gokin or vinyl?

josh fraser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my humble opinion, I don't quite understand
> some of you creative types who make toys, make
> graphics, have design/toy blogs and pimp your
> wares or do shows, who are hating on any other
> "artists" who basically do the same thing.

Well, my particular beef with all this is regarding the culture of being an "artist". First off, I realize I probably shouldn't shit on the weepy emo types you see on these shows. As much as I want to slap the shit outta fools who blindly defend any moron with a brush with phrases like "haters gonna hate" (I know Erik is just breaking balls), I actually kinda agree on some level in this case: see, it's more the "game", rather than the "player" that pisses me off.

> Maybe for me, the working class hero bashing trend
> of "artists" and the scene, which you are directly
> or indirectly apart of just seems like a waste of
> energy, that simply could go into creating work.

True, but here's the thing for me about the show: if no one ever mentioned that Morgan was gonna be on it, and you just told me, "hey, Sanjeev, there's a new 'reality' tv show on Bravo coming out that features up-and-coming artists who get voted off the island, one by one, while trying to impress judges", I woulda been able to describe for you EXACTLY what we see in that trailer/promo vid. I think most of us could. You mention class...and I think that hits the nail on the head for me. A lot of my frustration is that I've grown up surrounded by working class and raised poor artists (whites, blacks, Asians, etc.) from the hood or the 'burbs who would NEVER...EVER...be featured on a show like this.

To be an "artist" in the eyes of mainstream folks, you have look a certain way. Act a certain way. Dress...talk...etc...

That's what I meant by "culture" above in my first sentence. It's a culture of capitalism...where "art" is commodified to the point where now, even the fucking ARTIST, him- or herself, has to fit a fucking mold. That's the most disgusting thing imaginable to me. But there you have it.

And as for wasting our time and energy bashing these shows or these people--rather than putting those resources into making our own shit--well, I agree with that principle. But at the same time, this is an open public forum that we constantly struggle to keep safe for people to vent what's on their minds (while getting useful feedback/perspective from other folks who "get it"). For example, I personally couldn't FUCKING care less if some cock-sucking cunt is flipping toys on eBay that *someone else is selling* on Y!J for three times the Y!J asking price. It's a scam and it's disreputable...but at the end of the day, I don't have to bid. So...who cares? HOWEVER, TBDX is--again--an open forum where buying toys (or making "art") is a relevant issue...and if folks want to vent their frustration about these dildo sellers, then by all means. On some level, ya need to take ranting with a grain of salt and realize that it may just be venting and not what people TRULY feel deep down inside.

I know...easier said than done. But that's life. That's how us humans communicate! I figure that as long as people's venting doesn't really start to dehumanize other segments of the population (let alone other board members) with oppressive statements, we should be okay. And in this case, maybe we have: by implying that ALL artists who look or sound anything like the people on that show suck...well, that's kinda fucked up.

I remember some time ago how I similarly had to qualify my rants about hipsters: it's not their fucking clothes or hair. It's not their taste in beer or music. It's not their love of non-mainstream shit or other forms of cultural "irony". If someone who fits all those superficial characteristics walks up to me and starts talking, I'ma treat them like a human being unless/until they say something legitimately fucked up. I mean, who cares about superficial characteristics? Dress how you want to dress--I don't give a shit. It's the grotesque classism that underlies a LOT of hipsters' behavior that I find offensive. So if one of these people actually comes off as being "too good" for whatever mainstream thing we're talking about, I know to make my exit...

So, yeah, there's objectively fucked up, oppressive shit out there...and it's important to call it out for what it is. But while venting publicly in a place like this, I guess it's important to try to keep it clean and NOT lose sight of why you're frustrated. 'Cause if we don't, we run the risk of internalizing that oppression and parroting it back at each other...

I think we are saying pretty much the same thing and on principle I agree with many of your points. My only beef with anyone is the preconception or broad stroke statements. It as you say de humanizes a broad part of the population. I don't mean it in a weepy "stop having an opinion in an open forum, it hurts my feelings" as I am a pretty pessimistic person by nature and understand realistically speaking many of these stereotypes have merit to some degree. But as an artist ( yes i said it) I do have a right to say hey guys, take a look in the mirror before you bash an entire profession.

"A lot of my frustration is that I've grown up surrounded by working class and raised poor artists (whites, blacks, Asians, etc.) from the hood or the 'burbs who would NEVER...EVER...be featured on a show like this."

Right, for me but being an asshole has less to do with your economic standing than it does to how you were brought up. I know plenty of artists without means who are just as unbearable as their well off counterparts. The fact they are not on the show says more about the people making the show, or the circumstances. People are picked for things for subjective reasons...and out of luck. With media being so easy to access these days, you sit in a profession long enough and make yourself known to the right folks, there is a potential for recognition.

"To be an "artist" in the eyes of mainstream folks, you have look a certain way. Act a certain way. Dress...talk...etc... "

This is where I disagree a bit. Where does it say that? Who is the "they"..the media, the public,the artistic community? That is like saying all musicians have to be seen a certain way, or all scientists. Some of the best artists I know, you would never know they were "artists" And many of them are publish and in magazines, on documentaries and are written about. For most of them all that matters is the work. That is all that will be left behind when they drop dead.

Yes I agree there are easy associations to be made, and the generic "art skool girl" look or the emo boy painter is something people latch onto, because it makes it easier to say "this is this" and catalog someone, but at the same time, that is like saying people expect gay people to act and look a certain way.

( I must be high to want to engage in a class /race topic with you Sanjeev, but here I am, as I won't get anything done at work) Lol!

Mike Parisi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're all going to be on Reality TV one day, it's
> just a matter of time ;)
>
>
> I was actually on The Price in Right sometime in
> the early 90's. Watch only if extremely bored:
>
>
> [vimeo.com]

I am guilty of being a "hater" of what Sanjeev nails as the contemporary "culture" of art, the superficial elements that are more about embodying a lifestyle rather than having relevance to the art itself.

Case in point, went to a private university where the eccentric art clique lived up to the sterotype of calling the business students "Capitalist Pigs" and embraced every Leftist cause that can fit on a t-shirt.

Went to the Senior Exhibition, where students showcased and sold supposedly thier BEST pieces in paint, drawing, or sculp medium. Sadly, most were just abstract collages of triangles or squares, or unimpressive Pollock-esque clones. Then, in the midst of this madness was a gigantic painted Chinese calendar, probably five feet by five feet, with a price tag of $10,000.00. The style and quality of the piece were atonishing, and it was purchased by a large corporation for display at that price.

Then back to the "triangles" and "paint spatters", which also had similar prices on them, which did not sell for the reason that there was nothing inherent in these pieces which would demonstrate that the artist had benefited from any formal education or training, let alone four or more years at a priviate school.

I watch plenty of the design shows with my wife on tv, and am usually split evenly on which contenstents reinforce my negative stereotype of what I feel is wrong with the "art scene", and then there are those who are hard working, industrious, TALENTED, and are focused on thier work rather than the "character" they play in life. You need to be a bit eccentric to exist in that world, but not so much that it takes precedence over one's ART.

Talent, there's a word. I knew (and personally liked for that matter) many art poseurs growing up and through school, but the difficult thing to watch was how many just did not have the raw talent to be successful artists, in that they could never make a living producing art or applying it to any other field, and spent much more effort on thier persona than improving thier skills.

Josh, I can't imagine that you went to art school to design shoes, but it sounds like you are not only using your art schooling in your job, but are also talented, otherwise you wouldn't have a job you could support yourself with as well as maintaining a wallet-killing hobby. I'm sure you have many other more enjoyable and creative outlets for your art as well, and as much as I understand that the signficance of art is not it's value in the strict monetary sense, if you could support yourself in the same fashion producing art you are more passionate about you'd be doing just that.

I just knew too many people who in my opinion squandered an educational opportuntiy (whether material art, theater, music, etc.) who are destined to work in the coffee house (not bashing anyone who works for a living btw) talking about art rather than being able to enjoy employing their passion in a professional career, when the opporutnity to pursue a career which could have provided a stable living and the ability to create art on the side may have been a wiser path.

I don't consider art to be frivolity, and realize the richness it bring to what would otherwise be a very BLAND existence, but it's the art "scene" that is the target of the brunt of the "hate" I am picking up on, and not "artists" in the purest sense.

Anyway, yeah, it sounds like we're only differing ever so slightly, Josh. Certainly folks of *any* economic or racial background can be cunts or clergy.

josh fraser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact they are not on
> the show says more about the people making the
> show, or the circumstances.

Haha....so ^THIS^ hits the nail on the head (regarding why shows like this tend to frustrate me).

However...

> People are picked for
> things for subjective reasons...and out of luck.

^Here is where I disagree. There's ABSOLUTELY a "marketable" aspect to the types of people who get put on these shows. It's capitalism, dude. Totally objective...and totally grimy. No luck involved. Gods bless Morgan--that motherfucker can HUSTLE...and good on 'im for putting in the work to get on...but it was no accident. He's a solid dude, he works hard, and he's got the look. It's just like how on MTV's Real World, they go out of their way to find people with strong personalities that clash in order to induce contrived conflict. I expect Work of Art to be no different, in terms of casting. Everyone has to be beautiful and bitchy.

Alas, my friends are neither. Sure, most of them hustle and they get theirs by other means. I'm not saying they won't be "successful", but based on certain established oppressive stereotypes, their opportunities are constricted if they don't have the right look or pander to the right popular folks or whatever. I mean, forget the tv show...being an artist requires a lot of networking...and this sort of internalized oppression shows up in most artist circles. At the end of the day, I can't blame those who ARE successful (regardless of how they look)...but it's still frustrating.

Who is the "they"? It's everyone...all of us. The culture of capitalism has commodified art...and it affects EVERYONE. Just like with any oppression, everyone has to make changes in their outlook, everyday behavior, and even how they view themselves in order to create equal opportunities for artists who look emo or art-school or not. The sad thing is that, as a society, we seem to be heading away from that....

> ( I must be high to want to engage in a class
> /race topic with you Sanjeev, but here I am, as I
> won't get anything done at work) Lol!

LOL

Hey, I think it's a good discussion...and an important topic--obviously--since it comes up every now and then here. Thankfully my work day has been light! ;)

People are picked for
> things for subjective reasons...and out of luck.

Well, what I mean specifically, is yes the succeess of the show platform and money it makes is what dictates the medium and why the show exists, but people who pick the people are not as smart or calculating you you might think. The people fall into buckets of archetypal artists. It does not matter who it is as long as it works with all the aspects you pointed out.

There certainly is much to be said about Morgan being a hard worker and doing great stuff, but not disrespect when I say there are a dozen of him working on similar things right now. It is who you know and how smart you market yourself, not how hard that matters. The luck comes from being in the right place at the right time. People know people who know people. The art scene and the design scene and many of the media in marketing and development pick what both works for them AND is the path of least resistance. Thats all.

The objectivity comes from the brief written for the character, the subjectivity comes when the real world choice is made. The reason for picking people can change depending on someone's mood in this industry, or if they like your glasses or hair. It is painfully both mechanical and superficial.

Regan and I were picked for a reality show on a friend of ours who has a Mid century furniture shop in Maine, which will be out later this month, and the amount of control and manipulation the crew and director have is epic and oppressive. There is nothing real about any of it....but at the same time, none of them had an calculating reason to pick us other than it made it easier for them to get the shot with someone who sort of fits the generic demographic they wanted, and have a dynamic with the subject of the series.

But at the end we sort of agree I guess, so I won't beat a dead horse. ;-)

Mike Parisi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The BEST thing about WOA, simply said, is being
> able to watch the artistic process of creative
> people who care a lot about art. Under extreme
> time pressure. While being filmed.
>
> I'm sorry, but this show rocks.
>
> Then again, I watch no TV and rent WOA via amazon.
> So I don't have much context.

I have to check this out. I love seeing the creative process under pressure as it is pretty realistic in terms of how things are really made. Mike, I am sorry if I hijacked the thread and made it annoying. I am happy you found a show you enjoy. I am going to watch the Price is right again. ;-)

Sanjeev, ha...seriously tense shit. All the way to the bitter, bloody end. BTW, that thing didn't even have an AM radio, just a plastic cover where the tunes should be. And I never did get the box. Still, Bob was a cool dude.

You didn't hijack the thread at all Josh. I had a feeling this would get you motivated to comment. As a matter of fact, I had planned on posting a link to this last season, with the intention of getting everyone behind the idea of pushing you to audition. Had you done so, I think the final cut would have been between you and Sucklord, and if Simon had any insight into your collection, I bet you would have got it.

Mike Parisi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sanjeev, ha...seriously tense shit. All the way to
> the bitter, bloody end. BTW, that thing didn't
> even have an AM radio, just a plastic cover where
> the tunes should be. And I never did get the box.
> Still, Bob was a cool dude.

Did Bob discuss neutering pets at all? That must have been so much fun to do.

>
> You didn't hijack the thread at all Josh. I had a
> feeling this would get you motivated to comment.
> As a matter of fact, I had planned on posting a
> link to this last season, with the intention of
> getting everyone behind the idea of pushing you to
> audition. Had you done so, I think the final cut
> would have been between you and Sucklord, and if
> Simon had any insight into your collection, I bet
> you would have got it.

HA! Oh god. I am rusty as hell. I know far more deserving artists out there. But thanks ;-)

Though that said, I would like to see a show about athletic shoe designers who have to create kick ass technologies and ideas, get them made and have super athletes compete with them at the end and see who wins a contract with said athletes.

I'm just now getting caught up in the thread and I'm going to bypass a lot of it and prolly tread the same ground sooooo whatcha gonna do?

I usually use the term "Artist" as as anyone who creates and sells their work. IE. You make, you sell it. It's a profession. Anyone who writes books isn't a "novelist" until they start selling. My own definition.

So I said I hate artists. I said it out of a burst of pissed-offedness. Sanjeev will tell you how much I rant about human potential so I'll save you a lecture. What pisses me off about this whole show is that a group of creative people want to be successful so badly that they'll let their hard work, talent, and passion be reduced to a game show. Some bald asshole and a collector suddenly have say whether or not you're good at what you do.

Example.

I take Josh Fraser and put him on a show about shoe design and break down all of his experience and work into "You fail at shoes". And I have right to do that because I collect shoes.

That's bullshit. And it'd be even more bullshit because he let me do it.

I went to war with any of my professors that gave me a blank "That sucks". But these people are totally fine with taking it in the ass and crying on screen because this show will totally vindicate all their hard work. Bob Barker will determine if you have worth as a human. Bob Barker will determine if you're worth making a living on your work. Bob Barker will determine if your passion and love for creating is worth a shit.

It fucking makes me violent mad that anyone could so smugly shit on another persons worth.

servbot30 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm just now getting caught up in the thread and
> I'm going to bypass a lot of it and prolly tread
> the same ground sooooo whatcha gonna do?
>
> I usually use the term "Artist" as as anyone who
> creates and sells their work. IE. You make, you
> sell it. It's a profession. Anyone who writes
> books isn't a "novelist" until they start selling.
> My own definition.
>
> So I said I hate artists. I said it out of a burst
> of pissed-offedness. Sanjeev will tell you how
> much I rant about human potential so I'll save you
> a lecture. What pisses me off about this whole
> show is that a group of creative people want to be
> successful so badly that they'll let their hard
> work, talent, and passion be reduced to a game
> show. Some bald asshole and a collector suddenly
> have say whether or not you're good at what you
> do.
>
> Example.
>
> I take Josh Fraser and put him on a show about
> shoe design and break down all of his experience
> and work into "You fail at shoes". And I have
> right to do that because I collect shoes.
>
> That's bullshit. And it'd be even more bullshit
> because he let me do it.
>
> I went to war with any of my professors that gave
> me a blank "That sucks". But these people are
> totally fine with taking it in the ass and crying
> on screen because this show will totally vindicate
> all their hard work. Bob Barker will determine if
> you have worth as a human. Bob Barker will
> determine if you're worth making a living on your
> work. Bob Barker will determine if your passion
> and love for creating is worth a shit.
>
> It fucking makes me violent mad that anyone could
> so smugly shit on another persons worth.

I agree that the arbitrary nature of fighting to please some TV personalities is gross, but at the same time, if succeeding at this show is a standard that the 'art' community has set as meaningful, then does the arbitrary nature matter? Aren't all standards and accomplishments arbitrary at some point? If the artists on this show are so effected by the experience, then clearly it matters to them.

I don't know who any of the other people on the show are, but I assume they are all commercially successful modern artists, right? By your standard, that could be sign of success enough, but somehow these artists feel this experience and winning could be a more meaningful accomplishment, so can you really tell people what they should and shouldn't strive for? I take much more issue with the nature of the interactions between these people than I do with the concept of an 'art' reality show.

Hands down - dumbest sentiments ever expressed about "art" and "artists", EVAR. LEAVE YOUR SUBURBAN / MOTHERS HOUSE OF A REFUGE AND LEARN ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE - LOSERS. Everyone already knows reality tV isn't real. what are you? a 13 year old? "Wrestling is REAL man!"

Half of you are still bitching about the fact that your work ISN'T good enough to be a in a group show, or that some girl rejected you in High School. Pussies. Work harder.

And don't EVER compare a scholarly pair of gentleman like Saltz and De Pury to fucking Bob Barker. WTF... Read their bios.
Oh wait it wouldn't matter as none of you talking shit know any of those galleries, references, or probably... WORDS. Gaogasian FOR LIFE! FTW!

For fucks sake. Motherfuckers EAT because of these guys. You shit talkers.

Phillips De Pury puts a lot of people on. Milk studios too. You guys sound like uninformed dicks. And I like you Josh B! WTF is wrong with you? Act Right! Saltz is a fucking hero. STFU. You'd be so honored to have him tell you that your work sucks king kongs nut sack. "I just got punched by JAy-Z!! :) I'm never washing my face!" <- that's you.

Now stop bitching about people you know nothing about, from the safety of the fucking web and get your ass to NY. Enjoy our galleries, our work, and get out in your own city and SEE stuff in person. Jesus! get out of the house!

Come eat Crif Dogs with ME! I DARE YOU NERDS!

Looking at fucking JPGs all day acting like you know something first hand.

My initial reaction to this was "FUCK REALITY TV". It's all contrived and scripted and bad for humanity. Making judgements about these artists in the show is as about as valid as the judgements on the people's court. In regards to this initial thread, Props to SUCKLORD for being on TV, but I wish it was on 60 minutes instead of drivel like this.

Now about the artists thing, which to me is a separate topic. Artists tend to have strong personalities, even if they don't always have their own identities. I saw it in college, the urge to glom on to a clique and be known as one of the "artsy fartsy" crowd. The good artists tend to mature and find their own path as they grow, leaving what isnt sincere and keeping what resonates. The bad artists tended to stick with a schtick that identified them, more than their art did. This was just my observation.

Like, Art, the Artist is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion, one cannot call oneself an artist. One can only be called an artist. And an artist is someone who creates something for others to enjoy. There are GOOD artists, and BAD artists. The idea that one must be GOOD to be an artist is a fallacy.

One can be an artist and a hipster, but I don't think the two are related. When people use the word "artist" to describe one's character, I don't think that's valid. Sure maybe artists TEND to be hipsters, but one is not necessarily the other.

Josh F is an artist. Little JoshB is an artist. Sanjeev is an artist. Ben is an artist. Sean is an artist. All different artists. You do yourself a disservice by drawing a line between US and THEM.

Dice, buddy, being an art guy in NYC I think has very much made you bitter about the way the world perceives you. You both generalize and condem generalization in the same sentence:

"..for all of you losers who judge people by appearance from behind your screen you never leave..."

I like you, I like your art, but I think sometimes you let that chip on your shoulder get the best of you. Just because the rest of the world does not live in the city or namedrop does not make their art, or opinions thereof any less valid. I agree that travel broadens the horizon, but it someone's lack thereof does not invalidate their worth.

Sanjeev - I agree there is a plague of hipsterism that infects a lot of these art and design communities, but I think we react to it more because it is so foreign to us. My impression is that this is par-for-the-course in that world, which we are not a part of. Remember that Buff Monster party at at TOy Tokyo a few years back? I felt like an alien, which is a shame, because I like the idea. but I felt people were just trying too damn hard - but nobody but us outsiders saw it because we were the oddities there.

I've run off course I think.

I've done "art" for years. I'm not very good. I've been drawing skulls and comic books since junior high. I've painted done computer design, web design for years. Am I an artist? That's not for me to say.